NEW HAVEN -- A nine-person jury began deliberations Friday in U.S. District Court after listening to several hours of impassioned closing arguments from lawyers representing eight minority Greenwich police officers and the town.

Attorney Lewis Chimes, who is representing the officers in the federal racial discrimination case, called his clients "heroes" and asked the jury to right the wrongs of what they claim was a flawed policy that enabled police officials to discriminate against employees on the basis of race.

"At some point four years ago, eight people stepped forward and said enough,' " said Chimes. "This case was about standing up. They've already won that case. But your verdict is going to vindicate them."

Chimes said there was "overwhelming evidence" that the officers were singled out because of race and asserted that it is the town as a whole that should be held responsible.

However, attorney Robert Mitchell, who is representing the town, said the officers have "not a shred of evidence" to support their claims and are asking a jury to do what they failed to do themselves.

"The plaintiffs have come here seeking your sympathy and are asking you to condemn the town as a whole," said Mitchell. "They cannot blame the town for their continued misfortune, they can only blame themselves. I ask you to turn them away because the evidence does not support their claims."

Mitchell asked the jury not to be swayed by the "warm and fuzzy" arguments put forth by Chimes regarding the emotional toll the alleged treatment had on the officers.

He also asked the jury to consider how hurling the "toxic" charge of racism has affected those involved in the lawsuit, including former Police Chief James Walters and former First Selectmen Richard Bergstresser and James Lash.

"Think about how much suffering is imposed on those they are charging," said Mithcell.

Closing arguments ran several hours Friday as both sides continued to dispute the evidence in the case and whether the town should be held responsible for incidents of racial discrimination.

Chimes pointed to a figure mentioned often during the course of the two-week trial -- that Walters had made 34 special assignments during his tenure, none of which were afforded to minorities.

"That is a fact that is inescapable," said Chimes. "And it's a fact that should be looked over very seriously."

But Mitchell said the numbers don't show the whole picture.

"They have misled you with the numbers designated to come to a specific conclusion working backwards," said Mitchell.

A bulk of the closing arguments focused on whether the non-discrimination policies put forth by the town were reasonable and effective. U.S. District Court Judge Mark Kravitz told the jury the evidence must show that the first selectman was aware of the discriminatory actions, or should have been, but permitted or deliberately ignored them. The evidence must also show that procedures in place to make the grievances known were ineffective, according to the charging instructions presented to jurors.

Chimes said there was no comprehensive policy on racial discrimination that allowed the officers to register their complaints without fearing retaliation.

But Mitchell said there was an abundance of ways in which the officers could have filed grievances.

"This takes us to the crux of the defense in this case," said Mitchell. "The town did provide multiple avenues, and when people used those avenues, they got results. The plaintiffs unreasonably failed to take advantage of the procedure."

Chimes told the jury that just because the town had a written policy saying discrimination was not tolerated, it doesn't mean that it worked that way. Chimes also ripped into the town's affirmative action office and pointed out how Lash could not remember who was handling claims during his tenure.

"When (Lash) forgets the name of the (affirmative action) officer in charge of policy, that is overwhelming evidence," said Chimes.

"The only way things get done historically is when you go outside (the town)," said Chimes, who had the final opportunity to address the jurors during a rebuttal argument.

The mostly white jury, comprisingf five men and four women, must reach a unanimous decision on all claims in the case. The jury is also charged with assigning economic and emotional damages if they find in favor of the officers.

The claims to be decided include that all plaintiffs endured a hostile work environment from 2002-2006; the 2005 sergeant's examination for Brown; the demotion/removal of Officers O'Banner and John Woodward; and the failure to appoint to specialized units for John Rodriguez, Hardy, Johnson, Franco and Cameron.